Common English And Its “Domain-Specific” Vocabulary

WHAT IS FIRST PERSON?

In the First Person section, we feature informed perspectives from readers who have firsthand experience with the school system. View submission guidelines here and contact our community editor to submit a piece.

From middle school on, English teachers spend tons of time teaching what are now called “literary elements.” When I was a kid, we called them “literary devices,” which I think is a better term for things like metaphor, imagery, onomatopoeia: the devices that writers use to create literature. Whatever you call them, these devices are the foundation of a solid English education.

When I teach “Of Mice and Men,” the class spends a lot of time talking about imagery. When I teach “Romeo and Juliet,” we talk about metaphor. And when we finally get around to poetry, we talk about alliteration, assonance, onomatopoeia, and all the other specialized devices that elevate separate great literature from office memos.

There are always students who ask, “Why do we need to learn this stuff?” They say that nobody’s ever going to approach them on the street and ask them to clarify the difference between simile and metaphor; no job interviewer will ever ask them what they know about assonance. These students are probably right. Unless they become English teachers, having a thorough understanding of literary devices will not help these students make money. The truth is, we don’t teach literary elements because students are likely to use them in the workplace. (The same could be said, by the way, of calculus, chemistry, and American history.) We teach them because they are the building blocks of literature, and of all sophisticated writing. Without understanding these elements, students can’t discuss reading or writing with any authority; without understanding these elements, those students who want to become writers will lack many of the tools necessary to create great writing.

As far as the folks behind the Common Core standards are concerned, that’s just fine. Thanks to the Common Core, this year a series of “Shifts in ELA/Literacy” will be imposed upon English teachers across the country. These shifts require, among other things, that English teachers spend less time on “esoteric literary terms … such as ‘onomatopoeia’ or ‘homonym’” and more time on “pivotal and commonly found words…such as ‘discourse,’ ‘generation,’ ‘theory,’ and ‘principled.’” It’s worth noting that not one of the terms identified as “pivotal” under these common core shifts is specific to the discipline of English. This is particularly interesting given the Common Core’s insistence on “domain-specific” vocabulary.

Why do the folks behind the Common Core think domain-specific vocabulary isn’t important when it comes to English? Again, the language used to describe the new Common Core approach highlights the ways that these standards will change the goal of English study from understanding and mastery of literature and literary writing to “constantly build[ing] students’ ability to access more complex texts across the content areas.” In other words, the goal of English class will become helping students read texts for their other subject areas — the ones that really matter, like math.

Contrast the mandated shifts in English curricula to the Common Core “Shifts in Mathematics.” In math, under the Common Core, teachers are instructed to “teach more than ‘how to get the answer’ and instead support students’ ability to access concepts from a number of perspectives.” In math, the goal is that “students demonstrate deep conceptual understanding of core math concepts by applying them to new situations, as well as writing and speaking about their understanding.”

I have to be honest: that sounds awesome. It’s exactly what the goal should be for English class: deep conceptual understanding of core literary concepts. In order to gain such a deep understanding though, students must first master the elements that make up literature. Unfortunately, the folks behind the Common Core have made it abundantly clear that they see little value in having students understand literature. Over and over again, Common Core advocates have promoted teaching “informational texts” over literature. According to the Common Core, more than 50 percent of high school English curricula are supposed to consist of informational texts. By 12th grade, the Common Core recommends that 70 percent of the texts students read in English be informational, not literary. In other words, the more advanced students get in English, the less specialized their knowledge will become.

How will this affect me in the classroom? For starters, it will be deadly boring. Pulling information out of a text is not a high school-level skill. Indeed, according to basic literacy theory, “reading to learn new information” is a skill that should be mastered from ages 8 to 14. In high school, we should be focusing on moving students past basic comprehension (recommended by the Common Core) towards viewing texts from multiple perspectives, and then eventually towards constructing their own critical perspectives on these texts.

“Informational texts” provide few opportunities for such high-level thought. They are written at a basic level for a basic purpose— to convey information. This is why teaching literature is so essential. When my students read “Romeo and Juliet,” they have to gather information: plot points, character traits, and characteristics of setting are all forms of information that students must gather from literary texts. That information gathering, however, is not the goal of our study. The goal, ultimately, is to have students understand how Shakespeare uses language to provoke a variety of reactions in his readers. How does he use imagery to convey his characters’ emotional states? How does he use dramatic irony to heighten the audience’s interest? How can we use Shakespeare’s methods in our own writing? How do great writers use language to convey complex ideas and manipulate their readers?

We can approach these complex questions through “Romeo and Juliet” because Romeo and Juliet is literature; it is complex writing that operates on many levels simultaneously in order to transcend the limits of language and provoke complex reactions in its readers. As such, literature demands far more of its readers than do “informational texts.” Along with that, it offers far greater rewards.

Under the Common Core, English teachers are told that for every unit we spend on “The House on Mango Street,” we must spend another on texts that are less rich and less complex. We are instructed not to teach the literary elements that make deep, complex writing possible. In the end, we are required to emphasize the most basic and superficial aspect of written communication — the simple transmission of information — at the expense of all the elements that make students want to read “The Hunger Games“ rather than watch reality television. When, after pulling a fact out of an informational text for the umpteenth time, students ask me that old question, “Why do we have to do this?”, I don’t know what I’ll say. It just doesn’t make any sense.

WHAT IS FIRST PERSON?

In the First Person section, we feature informed perspectives from readers who have firsthand experience with the school system. View submission guidelines here and contact our community editor to submit a piece.

From middle school on, English teachers spend tons of time teaching what are now called “literary elements.” When I was a kid, we called them “literary devices,” which I think is a better term for things like metaphor, imagery, onomatopoeia: the devices that writers use to create literature. Whatever you call them, these devices are the foundation of a solid English education.

When I teach “Of Mice and Men,” the class spends a lot of time talking about imagery. When I teach “Romeo and Juliet,” we talk about metaphor. And when we finally get around to poetry, we talk about alliteration, assonance, onomatopoeia, and all the other specialized devices that elevate separate great literature from office memos.

There are always students who ask, “Why do we need to learn this stuff?” They say that nobody’s ever going to approach them on the street and ask them to clarify the difference between simile and metaphor; no job interviewer will ever ask them what they know about assonance. These students are probably right. Unless they become English teachers, having a thorough understanding of literary devices will not help these students make money. The truth is, we don’t teach literary elements because students are likely to use them in the workplace. (The same could be said, by the way, of calculus, chemistry, and American history.) We teach them because they are the building blocks of literature, and of all sophisticated writing. Without understanding these elements, students can’t discuss reading or writing with any authority; without understanding these elements, those students who want to become writers will lack many of the tools necessary to create great writing.

As far as the folks behind the Common Core standards are concerned, that’s just fine. Thanks to the Common Core, this year a series of “Shifts in ELA/Literacy” will be imposed upon English teachers across the country. These shifts require, among other things, that English teachers spend less time on “esoteric literary terms … such as ‘onomatopoeia’ or ‘homonym’” and more time on “pivotal and commonly found words…such as ‘discourse,’ ‘generation,’ ‘theory,’ and ‘principled.’” It’s worth noting that not one of the terms identified as “pivotal” under these common core shifts is specific to the discipline of English. This is particularly interesting given the Common Core’s insistence on “domain-specific” vocabulary.

Why do the folks behind the Common Core think domain-specific vocabulary isn’t important when it comes to English? Again, the language used to describe the new Common Core approach highlights the ways that these standards will change the goal of English study from understanding and mastery of literature and literary writing to “constantly build[ing] students’ ability to access more complex texts across the content areas.” In other words, the goal of English class will become helping students read texts for their other subject areas — the ones that really matter, like math.

Contrast the mandated shifts in English curricula to the Common Core “Shifts in Mathematics.” In math, under the Common Core, teachers are instructed to “teach more than ‘how to get the answer’ and instead support students’ ability to access concepts from a number of perspectives.” In math, the goal is that “students demonstrate deep conceptual understanding of core math concepts by applying them to new situations, as well as writing and speaking about their understanding.”

I have to be honest: that sounds awesome. It’s exactly what the goal should be for English class: deep conceptual understanding of core literary concepts. In order to gain such a deep understanding though, students must first master the elements that make up literature. Unfortunately, the folks behind the Common Core have made it abundantly clear that they see little value in having students understand literature. Over and over again, Common Core advocates have promoted teaching “informational texts” over literature. According to the Common Core, more than 50 percent of high school English curricula are supposed to consist of informational texts. By 12th grade, the Common Core recommends that 70 percent of the texts students read in English be informational, not literary. In other words, the more advanced students get in English, the less specialized their knowledge will become.

How will this affect me in the classroom? For starters, it will be deadly boring. Pulling information out of a text is not a high school-level skill. Indeed, according to basic literacy theory, “reading to learn new information” is a skill that should be mastered from ages 8 to 14. In high school, we should be focusing on moving students past basic comprehension (recommended by the Common Core) towards viewing texts from multiple perspectives, and then eventually towards constructing their own critical perspectives on these texts.

“Informational texts” provide few opportunities for such high-level thought. They are written at a basic level for a basic purpose— to convey information. This is why teaching literature is so essential. When my students read “Romeo and Juliet,” they have to gather information: plot points, character traits, and characteristics of setting are all forms of information that students must gather from literary texts. That information gathering, however, is not the goal of our study. The goal, ultimately, is to have students understand how Shakespeare uses language to provoke a variety of reactions in his readers. How does he use imagery to convey his characters’ emotional states? How does he use dramatic irony to heighten the audience’s interest? How can we use Shakespeare’s methods in our own writing? How do great writers use language to convey complex ideas and manipulate their readers?

We can approach these complex questions through “Romeo and Juliet” because Romeo and Juliet is literature; it is complex writing that operates on many levels simultaneously in order to transcend the limits of language and provoke complex reactions in its readers. As such, literature demands far more of its readers than do “informational texts.” Along with that, it offers far greater rewards.

Under the Common Core, English teachers are told that for every unit we spend on “The House on Mango Street,” we must spend another on texts that are less rich and less complex. We are instructed not to teach the literary elements that make deep, complex writing possible. In the end, we are required to emphasize the most basic and superficial aspect of written communication — the simple transmission of information — at the expense of all the elements that make students want to read “The Hunger Games“ rather than watch reality television. When, after pulling a fact out of an informational text for the umpteenth time, students ask me that old question, “Why do we have to do this?”, I don’t know what I’ll say. It just doesn’t make any sense.

ARTICLE COMMENTS

if your quotes and analysis can be trusted, the teaching of literature will be significantly damaged by the common core implementation. what do you propose we should do about it?

i agree that some parts of the common core sound awesome. seems like a coalition birthed this process – and part of that coalition emphasized career-readiness (like reading informational texts). i don’t share your contempt for the cognitive skills involved in reading all informational and persuasive texts and don’t think doing so has to be deadly boring if done well about issues crucial to students’ lives. but i do agree with you (and Marx) that the procrustean fitting of humans to the machinery of the economy tends to “profane all that is sacred”.

and i think William Carlos Williams correctly argues,
“My heart rouses
thinking to bring you news
of something
that concerns you
and concerns many men. Look at
what passes for the new.
You will not find it there but in
despised poems.
It is difficult
to get the news from poems
yet men die miserably every day
for lack
of what is found there.”

not just men, of course, also women and students of all ages.

Michael Fiorillo

It makes plenty of sense if

1. your intention is, rather than help create free-thinking citizens, to produce worker-drones for an authoritarian 21st century workplace.

2. the real purpose of the new standards is to usher in even more testing.

To reflect David Coleman’s contempt for students back at him, teachers’s should collectively say that they don’t give a sh&# what he and his fellow testing profiteers think.

A.S.Neill

As I’ve commented previously, I’m not a particular fan of CC for various reasons. But one proposed change hit a personal note in the requirement for greater emphasis on non-fiction reading as this relates to gender interest differences. Research shows that males read less and more poorly than females but girls prefer narrative fiction, romances, poetry, plays while boys prefer science fiction, fantasy, special interest, and news. It has been suggested that the emphasis on the former while limiting the latter by teachers and librarians (confirmed by research), is part of the explanation of the gender gap in reading.

This In fact, was my personal experience in school. While strictly speaking I was an ok, above average reader, I certainly was
glad to dump most of the endless reading of fiction and poetry when I hit college and became an avid reader (over 50
bks/yr mostly non-fiction). Fiction can teach us many things (and I enjoy Jane Austen as well as the next English teacher for summer reading), but there’s nothing like walking into B+N and checking out the new non-fiction (with my teacher discount!). Biographies, history, current events, psychology, politics, warfare, new science, etc. Wow! You might say this is the general male oriented table, but interestingly, most of the English teachers (mostly women) I’ve talked to don’t read any of this. If I happen to mention a book I’m reading to one, I’m often met with a blank face or polite disdain. In fact, outside their Mandarin core of fiction and poetry, they have remarkably little knowledge about the world or how it works, or for that matter, can even discuss intelligently why Shakespeare probably is not the author of Shakespeare, who is, or why that matters. That is mostly a guy thing.

So let’s give male students a larger shot at reading the more interesting stuff (to us). And becoming better readers. Having said that, I’m still not a fan of CC for other reasons.

Flerp

Interesting. I bristled at first at the Venus versus Mars angle of your post. But then I remembered the first books I loved, before I ever heard of a Canon or considered that the contents of one’s bookcases was a marker of class and taste: Orwell, Douglas Adams, Stephen King, Asimov. Spot on in my case, A.S. Neill. And something to think about as the father of a son who’s less intense about reading than his sister.

A.S.Neill

Well thank you very much Mr. F. I also liked your point about books as “marker of class and taste”. If you haven’t already, try Paul Fussell’s Class. By an English Prof no less, A little outdated but still very funny and very true. And yea,… non-fiction!

http://schoolecosystem.blogspot.com/ Will Johnson

Thanks for the comments, everybody! One point I should have clarified in the article: I don’t have any objection to teaching non-fiction. In fact, Orwell, Richard Wright, Swift, and other great nonfiction writers are among my favorites to teach. My concern is about the emphasis on “informational texts,” which I think is related to a reductive notion about the purpose of reading and writing. A great biography is hardly a mere source of information: it’s a deliberately constructed narrative that serves multiple functions, very few of which have to do with transmitting information. My fear is that the people behind the Common Core do not share the passion for reading and writing that is clearly evident in this comment thread, and have designed a set of standards that reflect this lack of passion, as well as a fundamental misunderstanding of what literature is.

Flerp

One of my favorite books. That’s how I learned that I’m “high prole.”

DanaS.

What exactly is “informational text”? Is that a primary source for instance? Lots of those pieces have colorful vocabulary and crazy opinions that will keep students interested.

Matthew Levey

William,

Well crafted post as ever.

I am only a parent and don’t have a stake in the CCSS except in my hopes that at the k-8 level, we see a more structured approach to developing students’ background knowledge, Dan Willingham, the cognitive psychologist who writes a regular column for the American Educator has repeatedly noted that background knowledge is a huge factor is students ability to comprehend and enjoy literature of any type. (and it helps with test scores, not that this should be the focus of your efforts)

I think many observers are (ironically?) getting hung up on the semantics of “informational texts.” Of course I want my child to read Romeo and Juliet, but that doesn’t mean he should not read “Warriors Don’t Cry” or “The Diary of Anne Frank.” Taught effectively each of these texts offers rich opportunities to impart valuable lessons about literary style and technique, but also history, geography, and human emotions.

And if the students approach these texts never having heard of Italy or the Renaissance, Little Rock and Brown v. Board, The Netherlands or Hitler, how much harder is your task as a teacher? That’s where I hope school leaders recognize that by taking a structured approach to building background knowledge in the early grades they will build a base upon which students can come to appreciate alll kinds of literary structures and devices.

Menz65

I think that 70% of the informational texts just might be covered in science, math, global etc…so there should be room for plenty of fiction in an English classroom.

Roseanne

I am disappointed in your reasons for teaching literature. I don’t care if my son can discuss literary devices “with authority” nor do I think he plans on becoming a writer. My son needs to study literature because it is part of the human experience. All the STEM classes and STEM jobs in the world are worth nothing with the humanities.

http://schoolecosystem.blogspot.com/ Will Johnson

Thanks for your response. I agree completely that literature is an important part of the human experience, but I think that’s true of all the academic disciplines. When I teach English it’s my job to expose students to literature with the same depth and focus that a science teacher uses when they expose students to chemistry. This means helping them understand literary and rhetorical devices, the history of literature and literary forms, and all the other domain-specific knowledge that the Common Core seeks to discard. Not knowing your son, I obviously can’t comment on his career plans, but whatever path he follows I believe that a deep understanding of literature can only enrich his life experiences, in and out of the workplace.

http://schoolecosystem.blogspot.com/ Will Johnson

Like most jargon, I don’t think “informational text” is particularly meaningful to anyone but the people who created it. It seems to be a way of distinguishing between texts whose purpose is to transmit information (like instruction manuals) and texts whose purpose is to entertain (like historical fiction). It’s a pretty silly distinction, but its purpose is clear– to shift the focus of English instruction away from literature and towards basic literacy skills.

http://schoolecosystem.blogspot.com/ Will Johnson

That’s a great question and, honestly, I don’t know what exactly to do about these developments. One thing is clear to me: the folks changing the way our schools are run don’t care what teachers think. However, they might be more responsive if parents voiced some concerns. I think teachers/parents getting together to create an “opt out” movement from the Common Core might be a way forward, similar to the groups that have opted out of high stakes testing.

ms. v.

I would certainly not want to see literature pushed out of the English classroom.

I also think a reality in our society today is that many students (even top students!) struggle with the demands of college-level informational texts. After a very fiction & history-heavy (and very high-quality!) humanities education in HS, I found the argumentative style of philosophy and the organization and language of some other college-level informational texts to be quite challenging. (And I was first in my class and attended a very competitive university… so this is not just “basic literacy.”) Many of my college classmates, of similar levels of academic preparedness, also struggled with how to approach reading these texts and with how to produce high-quality informational or argumentative writing across a variety of disciplines, each with slightly different norms. So… I do think there’s a place for more direct teaching of the language of discourse in fields outside of English. Particularly if it helps keep doors open for students who might otherwise really struggle in college.

Teaching the tools of literary analysis is, of course, one piece of all that, as English literature is one discipline among many. The appreciation of great literature and the understanding of themes, use of language, etc. is so valuable; I deny none of these things.

I would also say, from the point of view of a middle school science teacher, we are often explicitly asked to be reading & writing teachers in addition to the work we do to teach our subject areas. (Science teachers are also asked to help with math, health, and a few other things, too…) I think it’s perfectly appropriate that I should teach students to write well within the genres of writing that relate to science, and to read the sort of texts one encounters in my field. I also hope that my colleagues who teach reading and writing will return the favor from time to time. A little goes a long way.

Maryvoneiff

I applaud
you for taking a stand and challenging the current CCS movement/dictatorship.
However there is a greater issue that I thinks needs highlighting…CCS is
removing the power that was given to local school districts, teachers, and
parents to assess what they feel is appropriate to teach. CCS is an attempt to
nationalize education and produce children who follow an agenda instead of
promoting independent critical thinking. I am saddened by the turn of events in
public education and glad I am out. CCS is the vehicle for loss of educational
liberty and local control of our schools.

CCS also operates in a vacuum. Can someone tell me how they thought CCS through
with relation to RTI, IEP’s, and APPR?

I want the
Feds out of Educational Policy. I would rather they abolish the State Ed Dept.
as well. These ideologues and policy people are driving this agenda and taking
millions and millions of dollars that could be better spent at the local level.

What was the
point of teachers going to years of school to be master’s of their craft, if they were going to be shoved a curriculum package
down their throats? I think CCS insults our teachers and their ability to make
decisions that positively affect the very populations they interact with
everyday.

Our testing
and educational performance is poor because our culture doesn’t respect the
profession, value of hard work, studying, and applying oneself. Parents are
overwhelmed, family structures are in constant stress, and money is being
diverted away from student programs and materials.

CCS is a
response to a systemic failure with the goal of producing workers. Not people.